One thing that would go a long way to clean up American politics would be for every accuser to have to provide the same evidence in response for their own accusations. This would get round the problems of Romney and his Tax, and Obama for his Birth Certificate, a bit of a "I will show you mine if you show me yours".

It probably would be a good idea for each candidate to provide proof that they meet the qualifications to be president as outlined in the US Constitution:

Proof that one is a native-born U.S. citizen (or for those born abroad, both parents must have been citizens of the U.S.)

Must live in the United States for at least 14 years (not necessarily consecutive years)

Will be at least 35 years of age by the time he/she would take the oath of office (Jan 20 of year following the election).

However, these qualifications must be presented to each state where the candidate wishes to have electors on the ballet representing that candidate for that particular state (there are other requirements for the party being on the ballet, such as percent of votes that party received in the prior election, or a certain number of signed petitions if the party did not receive enough votes in last election, etc).

Disclosure requirements for prior tax returns and campaign finance laws are already in place at the Federal level, and both Romney and Obama have complied with these (although additional campaign finance disclosures are obviously still to come). Romney has complied with tax return disclosures required by law.

The penalty is that you appear foolish and people take what you have to say less seriously. As for instance when you miss the point that the Supreme Court doesn't rule on desirability but on constitutionality. For instance, from the wikipedia article on the case :...

Personalty attacks and name calling are not appropriate and make you look less than civilized.

I have already explained my reasons why presenting a photo id is appropriate in several posts in this thread, just as it is for many other aspects life in the US and virtually every country in the world. And I also mentioned that I don't recall any time when I didn't have to present an appropriate id when voting. Further, I find the excuses for not having a photo id (drivers license or state issued id) to be similar to the reasons why many drivers don't have a valid drivers license--they are too lazy and/or irresponsible to get one.

Actually, that was not a personality attack, and I did not call you a name. You asked what the penalty for certain behavior was, and I told you, that in our society, if you do not take the care to understand what someone is saying before responding, they will take your response less seriously. As you have done so again.

No-one has ever said that it was an onerous burden for *you* to get an ID. I merely asked if it was better for 1000 people to be denied the vote rather than 1 person to vote illegal. You have not answered this question. The convenience for *you* to get an ID is irrelevant. This is not about *you*.

I don't want to go back and count, but I believe I asked you the same 1000 vs 1 question at least 3 times. Each time you responded either saying "The Supreme Court....." or "It's not so bad, I have an ID." You seem unable to answer a direct question about your ideas and opinions. Again, not name calling, but an evidence based observation.

I have decided, based on your behavior that it is not worthwhile to converse with you, m0002a. I hope that you are doing this for fun and this is not actually how you think conversation is carried on between people interested in exchanging ideas. In any case, I have placed you on ignore, and so won't be responding to anything further you have to say.

I have not seen a shred of evidence (mainly because you have not provided any - probably because there isn't any) to suggest that voter fraud is an issue in America, I would strongly suggest that far more fraud is conducted by the party faithful (from both parties) than by individual voters, why else would you ask biased people to count the votes, to promote fraud is the only logical answer.?

As we turn into a banana republic the only logical outcome would be to have some other nation count our votes. Who even knows if we have an adequate audit trail for electronic voting?

andyb wrote:

One thing that would go a long way to clean up American politics would be for every accuser to have to provide the same evidence in response for their own accusations. This would get round the problems of Romney and his Tax, and Obama for his Birth Certificate, a bit of a "I will show you mine if you show me yours".

This would reduce hypocrisy and very rapidly destroy the most stupid accusations, and at the same time identify who pays the most tax, who gives the most to charity, do they own the charity that they give tax to... etc

Only cult followers would view this as a good thing. Politicial parties are more like cults than any religion could hope to compete with.

Another thing missing from the equation. If the shoe were on the other foot and it was the dems that wanted voter ids and claiming voter fraud you can be sure the right would go bat shit crazy asking for and requiring proof, and then denying it if they got it, much like they did with the birth certificate.

_________________People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither﻿ patriots nor human beings.

Actually, that was not a personality attack, and I did not call you a name. You asked what the penalty for certain behavior was, and I told you, that in our society, if you do not take the care to understand what someone is saying before responding, they will take your response less seriously. As you have done so again.

Now you insulting my intelligence by saying it was a not personal attack, when everyone knows it was.

Nicias wrote:

No-one has ever said that it was an onerous burden for *you* to get an ID. I merely asked if it was better for 1000 people to be denied the vote rather than 1 person to vote illegal. You have not answered this question. The convenience for *you* to get an ID is irrelevant. This is not about *you*.

I don't want to go back and count, but I believe I asked you the same 1000 vs 1 question at least 3 times. Each time you responded either saying "The Supreme Court....." or "It's not so bad, I have an ID." You seem unable to answer a direct question about your ideas and opinions. Again, not name calling, but an evidence based observation.

I have decided, based on your behavior that it is not worthwhile to converse with you, m0002a. I hope that you are doing this for fun and this is not actually how you think conversation is carried on between people interested in exchanging ideas. In any case, I have placed you on ignore, and so won't be responding to anything further you have to say.

I don't believe it is true that 1000 people are being denied the right to vote for every 1 person who votes illegally. Those numbers simply have no basis in reality. The liberal Justice John Paul Steven apparently does not agree with your claim in his majority opinion, nor was any such convincing proof provided during the court case that he and the rest of the court ruled on.

I have explained in detail why it is that many people do not have a drivers license when polled about this question, and it is almost always because their drivers license has expired, been revoked, or they are illegal aliens who are afraid to get one. There is no proof of the numbers you have using. States who have voter id laws that have passed constitutional tests by the US Supreme Court offer free id's for those who don't have any of the other id's.

I don't understand. Just because the party faithful don't count votes in the UK has nothing to do with whether or not that happens in the US.

In the US, voting commissions (typically at the county level) are elected or appointed by partisan elected officials, who are themselves the partisan party faithful, and they run the elections. The theory is that both political parties have some members on local election commissions and who are "poll watchers" to make sure polling is done fairly, but in areas where there is a heavy majority for one party, they have a disproportionate number of people on the election commissions (and at the polls) and that makes fraud more likely in those areas. It is precisely because of this situation that most fraud is very difficult to prove.

It does have a very serious point in the UK and the rest of the world if the people counting the votes are the same people who want to get into power - this is a very small step from an all-out dictatorship. If this is happening in America, why does America constantly berate other nations about "free and fair elections" if its own elections are not free and not fair, and why is this not considered a serious problem when we all now know fro a fact that voter fraud is a non-issue in America - its the vote counters who should not be trusted, and yet they are.

Again, I use that word "Hypocrisy".

Who really cares whether voter fraud is easy to prove or not, the environment that even allows democratic and republican party supporters to count their own votes is the perfect environment for fraud - you might as well just let sports people be their own referee's - either way this has nothing to do with individual people committing voting fraud - which is inconsequential.

Quote:

If you do not have one of the above forms of photo identification, you are eligible to receive a free ID card for Voting Purposes ONLY.

Why not just ask everyone from the outset if they require one, and then tally that against the people who (for example "drive a car") and then ask them why they need this ID when they should be using their driving license - if you were sensible this would be a good way to catch out illegal drivers at the same time without disadvantaging anyone who is eligible to vote - doing this would totally bust this entire thread from every possible angle in one go - but then it would only be done one state at a time, so this unfairness would still prevail across the whole country until it was adopted nationwide.

Quote:

Disclosure requirements for prior tax returns and campaign finance laws are already in place at the Federal level, and both Romney and Obama have complied with these (although additional campaign finance disclosures are obviously still to come). Romney has complied with tax return disclosures required by law.

That and the rest of the post did not cover my point. "if person "A" accuses person "B" of something, they should bot have to give the same evidence, and vice versa - that would quickly show the scumbags in their true colours as well as being as fair as you can be in the political spectrum.

Quote:

Another thing missing from the equation. If the shoe were on the other foot and it was the dems that wanted voter ids and claiming voter fraud you can be sure the right would go bat shit crazy asking for and requiring proof, and then denying it if they got it, much like they did with the birth certificate.

My point exactly - there should be "outlined rules of engagement", and all parties must abide by them or be automatically ejected, and the voters would then be much more assured in the system. That of course would never stop those crazy idol worshipers - nothing will, but it would clean up American politics a great deal. Likewise this policy should be implemented in other countries where this kind of politics is rife, fortunately this would not need to be implemented in the UK (at the moment) as everyone frowns upon the person who does the (personal) accusing rather than the person being being accused.

Quote:

Now you insulting my intelligence by saying it was a not personal attack, when everyone knows it was.

The word "Everyone" has been re-defined to mean "m0002a" - [example:] Everyone has a much smaller penis than I do

I don't believe it is true that 1000 people are being denied the right to vote for every 1 person who votes illegally.

Political double speak for "I have no evidence whatsoever", can anyone imagine an opponent trying to stand on such a shaky claim? Of course not, but with the double standard you can get away with it, referring to Andy's hypocrisy observation, which is based on reality.

m0002a wrote:

Those numbers simply have no basis in reality.

Ah yes, the old "some say...." technique, used exclusively by the Faux News Channel, and now used by you. Coincidence? I don't think so. But even if you don't believe the numbers are this skewed if even just 2 legitimate voters are stopped by this campaign to curtail 1 fraudalent vote then the harm outweighs the good. The numbers themselves are irrelevent, much like the prior comments you made that I addressed. Surprise, surprise.

_________________People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither﻿ patriots nor human beings.

That and the rest of the post did not cover my point. "if person "A" accuses person "B" of something, they should bot have to give the same evidence, and vice versa - that would quickly show the scumbags in their true colours as well as being as fair as you can be in the political spectrum.

I didn't start this thread, nor did I propose any new laws (my state already has a voter id law). Some are challenging the constitutionality (or least wisdom) of state voter id laws already in existence, so they should have to provide proof that those laws should be repealed, since it seems like a common sense safeguard to most people (including the US Supreme Court by a 6-3 ruling). If some states don't want voter id laws, or want to let convicted felons to be able to vote while still in prison (Vermont), that is their business, not mine.

If states really wanted to increase voter participation, they would have early/advance voting. But states like NY, MA, MI, RI, CT, etc (all of whom are controlled by Democrats) don't have that, even though they could easily pass legislation to implement such provisions to make voting easier. This would have a much bigger impact that repealing (or preventing) voter id laws. The fact is that the Democratic party only wants to increase voter participation in swing states because they have all the votes they need in Blue states.

Political double speak for "I have no evidence whatsoever", can anyone imagine an opponent trying to stand on such a shaky claim? Of course not, but with the double standard you can get away with it, referring to Andy's hypocrisy observation, which is based on reality.

The evidence is provided in the Supreme Court decision "Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008)." I provided a link the to decision in an earlier post in this thread. Some have objected that they don't have time to read the entire decision and examine all the evidence, but that is not fault.

The evidence is provided in the Supreme Court decision "Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008)." I provided a link the to decision in an earlier post in this thread. Some have objected that they don't have time to read the entire decision and examine all the evidence, but that is not fault.

Others have provided you direct links to "evidence" in a readable and usable format. e.g. graphs, percentages etc.

You propose to provide 65 pages of unreadable shit knowing that no one will read it, that is not evidence that is the opposite of evidence..

The fact that the judges passed the judgment "via the constitutional guidelines" does not make it correct, and thus the "constitution" is utter bollocks in this case as well as many others. Not long ago I was personally edging towards favouring a constitution, but as I have seen it is as much a burden and a complication as it is protection and help - at best we would be in the same condition if we had a constitution as not, at worst we would be in perpetual stalemate in legal terms because many laws are constantly in contradiction with the constitution.

If I were given the choice tomorrow to vote whether the UK adopted a constitution, I would do my very best to persuade everyone else to vote against. If I have learned anything from this bizarre ID law in America is that the constitution and differing state laws cock things up far more than they should and are a long way from being fair, and as a lifelong right-wing voter that is saying a lot as to how anti-liberal America is.

Below BTW are some colossal cock-ups that the US Constitution failed upon, and had to be amended to allow into law - right up until those various points it was "Unconstitutional for women to vote", it was "Unconstitutional for slaves to vote", it was "Unconstitutional for REAL Americans to vote in their own damned land", it was "Unconstitutional for freed slaves to vote (e.g. non white)".

How many things that should not be, are STILL unconstitutional.? Mandatory voter ID is one of them -we have gone round and round in circles, but there is still no evidence at all as t why anyone actually needs to provide any photo ID at all to vote in America, I dont in the UK and just like America we dont have any kind of voter fraud problem. Why is America the only country in the world that is constantly telling everyone else how FREE America is, when its obvious that it is not. Hypocrisy.

The US Constitution is in itself Unconstitutional as has already been proven by it denying votes to well over 50% of the population - therefore it cannot be a backup argument for anything at all.

If I were given the choice tomorrow to vote whether the UK adopted a constitution, I would do my very best to persuade everyone else to vote against. If I have learned anything from this bizarre ID law in America is that the constitution and differing state laws cock things up far more than they should and are a long way from being fair, and as a lifelong right-wing voter that is saying a lot as to how anti-liberal America is.

Decide for yourself. Hopefully Britain will not be invading the US to tell us whether we may keep our constitution. I have never heard anyone in the US say that we should try and persuade the UK to adopt a constitution.

andyb wrote:

Below BTW are some colossal cock-ups that the US Constitution failed upon, and had to be amended to allow into law - right up until those various points it was "Unconstitutional for women to vote", it was "Unconstitutional for slaves to vote", it was "Unconstitutional for REAL Americans to vote in their own damned land", it was "Unconstitutional for freed slaves to vote (e.g. non white)".

It was never unconstitutional for any of these groups (slaves, freed slaves, or women) to vote if states wanted to allow them to (and some did). When the US constitution was amended to specifically allow them to vote, that merely made it mandatory for all states to allow that, instead of being optional. The only exception may have been American Indians, who are allowed to vote in Federal elections as a result of a specific Supreme Court ruling, but since their reservations are usually not under the control of state governments, they don't vote in state elections (they have their own local councils and governments and elections).

The important thing to remember is that the US is a Republic of States, and there is some variation of how the states do things, presumably just as their is some variation between England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, etc for political matters in the UK. However, in the US, if something is declared unconstitutional with regard to the US Constitution (by the US Supreme Court), then the states must comply with rulings of Court on these matters. BTW, each state also has a constitution and a State Supreme Court. But the US Constitution and the US Supreme Court always trumps any State Constitutions or State Courts, but not everything is included in the US Constitution, as some matters are left to the states (see 10th amendment).

andyb wrote:

How many things that should not be, are STILL unconstitutional.? Mandatory voter ID is one of them -we have gone round and round in circles, but there is still no evidence at all as t why anyone actually needs to provide any photo ID at all to vote in America, I dont in the UK and just like America we dont have any kind of voter fraud problem. Why is America the only country in the world that is constantly telling everyone else how FREE America is, when its obvious that it is not. Hypocrisy.

Presenting a photo id at an election does not seem to me, nor the majority of the US Supreme Court, to be an abridgment of our freedoms. However, voter id laws in some states do not meet the constitutional test, and have been struck down, particulary if they charge a fee for getting an id card if they don't already have a drivers license, etc. So I believe the US Supreme Court has done a good job of reviewing these laws, and making sure that fair elections can be ensured, and that there are no serious obstacles to voting.

I wasn't aware that a lot of people in the US try and tell others how free Americans are. This thread was not started by an American. I sometimes try and explain how the US system works, because it is sometimes complicated for people (even Americans) to understand it. Maybe sometimes we defend the system when you attack it, but I personally don't care if you like it or not, and am not trying to persuade you one way or the other, so long as you understand how it actually works.

andyb wrote:

The US Constitution is in itself Unconstitutional as has already been proven by it denying votes to well over 50% of the population - therefore it cannot be a backup argument for anything at all.

The reason why only 50% of the population votes in the US has nothing to do with their freedom to vote. It has to do with laziness, the fact that usually their vote won't make any difference on who gets elected (the vote is not going to be close in their state, and/or the winner-take-all all system for electors in the Electoral College), or often times they don' t really know who to vote for.

Historically, many totalitarian countries have had (or still have) very high voting participation, so I don't think voting percentage is a reflection of the amount of freedoms people have in their country. People have a freedom to not vote, and to not be involved in political matters if they don't want to.

The state could not provide any evidence of voter fraud; maybe because there is none?

It is virtually impossible to discover fraud if you don't check id's. The US Supreme Court has ruled that states may enact reasonable measures to prevent fraud and to ensure fair elections, so long as the measures don't impose unreasonable barriers to voting. If state id cards are free, the US Supreme Court has ruled there is no barrier. The court ruled that laziness in obtaining a free id card is not considered to be a barrier sufficient to strike down a voter id law.

The reason why only 50% of the population votes in the US has nothing to do with their freedom to vote. It has to do with laziness, the fact that usually their vote won't make any difference on who gets elected (the vote is not going to be close in their state, and/or the winner-take-all all system for electors in the Electoral College), or often times they don' t really know who to vote for.

The 50% I referred to was "Women", the Constitution did NOT mandate the rights for Women to vote as well as non-whites etc and as such the Constitution had to be amended several times to "force" (mandate) these huge swathes of the American population to be allowed to vote. My point was pretty simple, the Constitution is a long way from perfect and yet it has not been given a huge overhaul to make it more perfect, more concise and reduce a great deal of the ambiguity that goes on between individuals, groups, States and the Federal government.

The US constitution is no more than a set of rules, rights and laws just like any other country has, except that because it is rolled up into a single document this makes it much more difficult to change and massively complex and confusing at the State level and below.

That is the main reason why I would prefer to see thousands of different laws, rules regulations and rights that are separate rather than rolled into one huge document - changing a single law is much easier and faster due to its modularity. The only winners in such circumstances are lawyers who are (mostly) immoral scum.

The 50% I referred to was "Women", the Constitution did NOT mandate the rights for Women to vote as well as non-whites etc and as such the Constitution had to be amended several times to "force" (mandate) these huge swathes of the American population to be allowed to vote. My point was pretty simple, the Constitution is a long way from perfect and yet it has not been given a huge overhaul to make it more perfect, more concise and reduce a great deal of the ambiguity that goes on between individuals, groups, States and the Federal government.

The US constitution is no more than a set of rules, rights and laws just like any other country has, except that because it is rolled up into a single document this makes it much more difficult to change and massively complex and confusing at the State level and below.

That is the main reason why I would prefer to see thousands of different laws, rules regulations and rights that are separate rather than rolled into one huge document - changing a single law is much easier and faster due to its modularity. The only winners in such circumstances are lawyers who are (mostly) immoral scum.

Andy

US:The original US Constitution was defective in that it recognized slavery. This was changed when the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865. Most northern states had already abolished slavery via state laws before that time, or had never allowed it.

However, the US Constitution made no mention of women's suffrage one way or the other, as these matters were left to the states. The 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920 giving women the same right to vote as men in any election in all states. Prior to the 19th amendment, the vast majority of states already allowed either partial or complete women's suffrage. Here is information on women's voting right by state prior to the 19th amendment.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... svg&page=1

UKIn the UK, the Representation of the People Act 1918 was passed, giving women over the age of 30 the right to vote if they met minimum property qualifications. The Representation of the People Act 1928 extended the voting franchise to all women over the age of 21.

In the UK, the Representation of the People Act 1918 was passed, giving women over the age of 30 the right to vote if they met minimum property qualifications. The Representation of the People Act 1928 extended the voting franchise to all women over the age of 21.

Not quite the full story. Some women had the vote previously under householder sufferage rules because they owned property. Lily Maxwell became the first woman to vote in 1867.

Coming back to slavery, it was abolished in the UK in 1807 and throughout the Empire in 1833.

It is also key to note that we have never had racial segregation in the UK, something that in some parts of the US you continued to have even 50 years ago. The US army even tried to introduce segregation on military bases in the UK during WW2 until our government intervened and said it would not be allowed on Birtish soil.

Not quite the full story. Some women had the vote previously under householder sufferage rules because they owned property. Lily Maxwell became the first woman to vote in 1867.

Coming back to slavery, it was abolished in the UK in 1807 and throughout the Empire in 1833.

It is also key to note that we have never had racial segregation in the UK, something that in some parts of the US you continued to have even 50 years ago. The US army even tried to introduce segregation on military bases in the UK during WW2 until our government intervened and said it would not be allowed on Birtish soil.

The British established slavery in the New World long before any of the US Founding Fathers were born. If the UK had grown cotton on their own soil, I would bet money that slavery would have stayed around a lot longer in the UK than it did. Interesting that Britain banned slavery at home in 1807, but not until 1833 for the rest of their "empire." Britain did not ban colonial rule until after WWII for most of its empire, which although was not exactly slavery, was imposed by military force in most cases.

None of my previous comments were meant to be a contest between the US and UK on slavery or woman's suffrage, but rather an understanding of the difference in laws and practices among the States and how the US Constitution fits into all of this, under the Republic which is the United States of America. Things don't always happen at the same time in every state because the US is a Republic of (now) 50 states..

But since there obviously is now a contest here, I will note that women in the State of New Jersey had the right to vote from 1776-1807. Other states in the northeast allowed women to vote during that same general time-frame, but not as long as New Jersey. The Wyoming territory has allowed women to vote since 1869 and I don't believe there was a property requirement.

The British established slavery in the New World long before any of the US Founding Fathers were born.

We never established it, the first recorded slave shipment to the US was actually Dutch.

m0002a wrote:

If the UK had grown cotton on their own soil, I would bet money that slavery would have stayed around a lot longer in the UK than it did.

Most of our cotton came from India, somewhere that we actually liberated slaves when we arrived. Under their previous rulers including other European powers slavery had been allowed.

m0002a wrote:

Interesting that Britain banned slavery at home in 1807, but not until 1833 for the rest of their "empire."

It had never really been legal to enslave someone, legal challenges to slavery had been successful on many occasions before, however the law had never officially covered slavery as a trade. The acts of 1807 and 1833 made trading slaves illegal. The 1833 act was separate from the 1807 act, not so much for your imperialist view (the British law would already defacto have applied in the empire) but because by making it illegal in the empire it also effected British waters, thus meaning that the slave trade itself was effectively abolished internationally as otherwise traders would have been treated as pirates. It has later been reclarified such that it is illegal for one person to own another person.

m0002a wrote:

Britain did not ban colonial rule until after WWII for most of its empire, which although was not exactly slavery, was imposed by military force in most cases.

No, it was not imposed by military force in most cases. It was imposed by trade. If so many countries did not want to continue being associated with Britain then why would so many still be part of the Commonwealth? With the exception of Zimbabwe (kicked out because of Mugabe) and the Republic of Ireland, they've all remained. 2.1 billion people can't be wrong.

Ironically US territories still don't get the same rights to elect as others in the US, neither does Washington DC. Obviously you will defend this as being part of the US constitution.

The fact that any topic getting political causes you to go on this crusade on behalf of the US constitution almost borders on religion. I feel I have to add a few words every so often when something is historically of interest but they do always seem to be you versus everyone else! Keep up the good work... and the triple posting when you've got multiple arguments to make.

The original US Constitution was defective in that it recognized slavery. This was changed when the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865. Most northern states had already abolished slavery via state laws before that time, or had never allowed it.

Thank you for accepting that the US Constitution has got things badly wrong several times before.

I believe that the US Constitution has AGAIN got it wrong with regards to voter ID (and several other things). I am sure that you will continue to defend the indefensible, and/or argue along a different parallel line such as each state can do xyz because the constitution allows it etc etc.

Just because the card itself is "free" doesn't make it easy to get, or that it is not an obstacle to voting. If you do not have a birth certificate, or do not drive, or don't own a car, or have to take 2 or 3 days off from work, or any of a number of other reasons -- it is definitely *not* free to get a voter ID.

Originally, only white men who owned land could vote. Yeah, the most important thing about the US Constitution is that is can be made "more perfect" -- by we the people.

We never established it, the first recorded slave shipment to the US was actually Dutch.

"In 1607, English settlers established Jamestown as the first permanent English colony in the New World. Tobacco became the chief crop of the colony, due to the efforts of John Rolfe in 1611. Once it became clear that tobacco was going to drive the Jamestown colony, more labor was needed. At first, indentured servants were used as the needed labor. These servants provided up to seven years of free service and had their trip to Jamestown paid for by someone in Jamestown. Once the seven years was over, the indentured servant was free to live in Jamestown as a regular citizen. However, colonists began to see indentured servant as too costly, and in 1619, Dutch traders brought the first African slaves to Jamestown."

This means that the English settlement was the first in the New World to use African slaves that they purchased from Dutch traders.

edh wrote:

Most of our cotton came from India, somewhere that we actually liberated slaves when we arrived. Under their previous rulers including other European powers slavery had been allowed.

Most? A lot of British cotton was imported from the American South.

Slavery was not outlawed in India until a century after the "British Empire" took military control. It was not called an "Empire" because of mere trading agreements, even if they may have started out that way. It was only 1947, when Britain was weakened by WWII, that India gained its independence after many years of both violent and non-violent (Gandhi) confrontation with their English masters. A country does not have to "gain independence" if it is only a trading agreement, and as you noted above when making reference to India's "previous rulers" Britain did "rule" India for quite a long time. Being occupied and forcefully ruled by a foreign nation for a millennium is not the same as slavery, but is not exactly what the Indians preferred.

edh wrote:

No, it was not imposed by military force in most cases. It was imposed by trade. If so many countries did not want to continue being associated with Britain then why would so many still be part of the Commonwealth? With the exception of Zimbabwe (kicked out because of Mugabe) and the Republic of Ireland, they've all remained. 2.1 billion people can't be wrong.

Really? The British put down many rebellions by force in both America and India. The association of countries in the Commonwealth is rather weak, especially India, and is merely a nostalgic wet-dream of Anglos who like to think that India and other independent countries are still part of the British Empire.

edh wrote:

Ironically US territories still don't get the same rights to elect as others in the US, neither does Washington DC. Obviously you will defend this as being part of the US constitution.

Not sure what you mean by "ironically"? Are you saying that people in the Commonwealth can elect the British Prime Minister? Washington DC does vote in local and presidential elections, but is not given the same representation as the states in Congress, party due to its small size, and also due to the fact that US government runs the District and pays its bills (it is not self-sufficient), unlike how real states operate.

edh wrote:

The fact that any topic getting political causes you to go on this crusade on behalf of the US constitution almost borders on religion. I feel I have to add a few words every so often when something is historically of interest but they do always seem to be you versus everyone else! Keep up the good work... and the triple posting when you've got multiple arguments to make.

I did not start this thread, nor any of the other similar ones attacking American politics, American voting, or whatever. I have tried to explain how the US system works, and the US Constitution and the Republic of States is a big part of that, and important in understanding the US form of government, how and which US laws must be changed to make things different than they are now, and other matters directly relevant to the topics discussed here.

I personally am not commenting on whether any other country should adopt the US Constitution, or its Republic of States form of organization. Others can choose for themselves what to do in their own countries. It would never even occur to me to start a thread (in fact multiple threads) about the internal politics of another country, especially when I didn't really understand how the other country's government and politics really works. But when someone does start such as thread, the American system of government is different than the British, so it does take some explaining, and even many Americans don't understand how it works (and many liberals don't like that we have a Republic of States).

As for triple posting, I do seem to need to post the same facts and arguments over and over again because many people keep posting their same arguments (and misconceptions) over and over again, and I feel an obligation to provide a response when I am quoted. If you look closely at this thread (and others), some people get just as upset when I don't respond to their posts (even if I previously answered their question or provided a definite link that answers their question) as when I do respond.

Just because the card itself is "free" doesn't make it easy to get, or that it is not an obstacle to voting. If you do not have a birth certificate, or do not drive, or don't own a car, or have to take 2 or 3 days off from work, or any of a number of other reasons -- it is definitely *not* free to get a voter ID.

Originally, only white men who owned land could vote. Yeah, the most important thing about the US Constitution is that is can be made "more perfect" -- by we the people.

It doesn't take 2 or 3 days to get an id card or vote. People who work must have a government issued photo id on their first day of work to prove that they are even eligible to work, so that argument sounds like a contradiction.

Certainly, voting rights were often restricted in the US (and in other countries) even when voting was allowed. Race, gender, property ownership were often requirements in the US and Britain. One reason that property was required to vote was that usually taxes in those days were based solely on property, instead of also sales and income taxes as is the case today.

But none of the previous restrictive voting in the states had anything to do with the US Constitution, other than the Constitution allowed the states to decide those things for itself. So I am not sure it is fair to criticize the Constitution for state restrictions on these matters (except for the tacit recognition of slavery in the original Constitution). When the Constitution was amended to allow all races, and both genders, etc, the right to vote, this took precedence over any state laws on this subject. As already noted in previous posts, many states allowed all races and women the right to vote long before it was made mandatory in all states by the Constitutional Amendments.

I believe that the US Constitution has AGAIN got it wrong with regards to voter ID (and several other things). I am sure that you will continue to defend the indefensible, and/or argue along a different parallel line such as each state can do xyz because the constitution allows it etc etc.

I addressed this before, but maybe this is still some confusion. As mentioned, the US Constitution does not say anything about voter id laws and we know there were no government issued photo ids when the Constitution was written, but voting is generally left up to the states. However, the US Congress could pass legislation to ban state voter id laws , and if signed by the President it would be become law of the US. There have been several voting rights laws enacted by Congress and signed into law. Most of them (or maybe all of them) have been upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional, even if the constitution didn't explicitly address the specific issue involved (other than broad principles such as in the "equal protection" clause, etc). Not everything has to be in the US Constitution to become law (and in fact the US Constitution is a very short document and not everything is supposed to be in the US Constitution).

The only way a state could ignore a US Law that banned state voter id laws would be to challenge such a ban in the US Supreme Court and have it ruled unconstitutional. I am not an expert on this type of law, but I doubt that the Supreme Court would rule such a ban of state voter id laws as unconstitutional.

Last edited by m0002a on Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

For the record I'm actually for voter ID of some form on this. Not to discriminate against those people you call 'lazy' as if that is the case, it shows that the system fails. Instead it is a simple way of preventing corruption, whether it is widespread or not. It doesn't matter if it is not widespread, just so long as there is 1 fradulent vote it could have massive reprocussions if it has the possibility of swinging a government one way or the other. I know it might not be the anglo-saxon way to have ID but it doesn't make it wrong or any less democratic.

m0002a wrote:

One reason that property was required to vote was that usually taxes in those days were based solely on property, instead of also sales and income taxes as is the case today.

Income tax actually predates any kind of householder sufferage. The reason for householder sufferage being easy is that that it is the only thing there was a good record of. Keeping track of every single adult simply wasn't practical in the past. Unless you were registered as the ratepayer you could not vote. This itself made voter fraud much harder.

m0002a wrote:

This means that the English settlement was the first in the New World to use African slaves that they purchased from Dutch traders.

That's your forefathers, not mine.

m0002a wrote:

The association of countries in the Commonwealth is rather weak, especially India, and is merely a nostalgic wet-dream of Anglos who like to think that India and other independent countries are still part of the British Empire.

If they didn't want to be in it, they wouldn't be in it. They can leave as the Republic of Ireland did. It's actually taken as quite an important part of many countries heritage. It is not political as the PM has nothing to do with it, the Queen is the head of it.

m0002a wrote:

Are you saying that people in the Commonwealth can elect the British Prime Minister?

No, but then the British PM has absolutely nothing to do with the Commonwealth. Do we have any voting rights for the Canadian, Australian, Indian, New Zealand general elections? No, for the same reason. No doubt of course you'll still see as imperialism and all the work of that great tyrant, George III. We however have full representation for everything that the UK government presides over. All of the commonwealth and all crown dependencies have nothing to do with the political process of the UK, have nothing to do with our political parties and hence do not vote. They instead have their own local governments, this even covers the Isle of Mann which despite being just in the Irish sea, is not part of the UK.

m0002a wrote:

Washington DC does vote in local and presidential elections, but is not given the same representation as the states in Congress, party due to its small size, and also due to the fact that US government runs the District and pays its bills (it is not self-sufficient)

There is a movement for Washington DC gaining statehood and the slogan 'taxation without representation' has been associated with it. Similarly the territory of Peurto Rico which has a population of over 3 million remains under-represented although the Obama adminstration does seem keen for progress on this.

I have to answer late, because I was enjoying a vacation for the last couple of days.

m0002a wrote:

On the contrary, the Founders believed that the rights of men were only guaranteed by the law, and not by the whim of the people who decide things by election

Which law of the United States, which Article of the Constitution can't be changed (if by amendment) through a democratic process? Who says that voting for the guy to abolish same-sex marriage is Republican, while voting on the issue yourself is Democratic?

Quote:

Of course, socialist democracies have a tendency to evolve into socialist dictatorships

Name one example. Name one social(ist) democracy that turned into a dictatorship. And take note that I won't accept that the Soviet Union at any point was a democracy.

Quote:

For example, if we had an election today about whether there should be forced readings from the Christian Bible in public schools and other public events, such a law might win the majority of votes in some places (such things have been approved during US elections in modern times). In some socialist democracies you could substitute Marx or Mao for the Bible.

Once again, name the socialist democracy you're thinking of. I have the feeling that you have a very FOX News'ed vocabulary where democracy means something it actually doesn't.

Quote:

But it is only by the rights defined in the Constitution that prevents that from happening in the USA (assuming that there is also acceptance of the rule of law and obeying Supreme Court orders, something President Andrew Jackson refused to do). Proposition 8 is a good example, whereby the rights of individuals can be infringed by the whim of the majority in an election.

The US Consitutions prevents that from happening - except when it happened in California. Logical. If it happened in California, how is the US still a "republic" as per your definition?

Quote:

The Founders would also be dismayed about the "unrestricted" right of decisions by election (or mob rule) to take property away from people. This applies to real property (what we call real estate) or personal property (excessive taxation). For example, if an election was held and the majority voted for a socialist democracy, the Founders would be against the ability of the majority to impose its will on the minority in violation of their rights and liberties.

And how did that magical US Constitution come into effect: 9 out of 13 states had to ratify it. Oh the Majoritarianism.

Quote:

The idea that the Founders did not understand democracy and the difference between a democracy and a republic is just not true.

There is no difference between democracy and a republic. The Founders called their blend of citizen and human rights "republic", but that doesn't make it so. The Athenian Democracy only let about 20% of the people vote. By modern standards, it is NOT a democracy. The only modern country that has broad accomodations of direct democracy is probably Switzerland. It would be the only country currently befitting your narrow definition of democracy. Every other country would be a republic or a dictatorship.

Your vocabulary seems to have been influenced by a certain ideology. One where the Democrats are Socialist, so Democracy must be Socialism. But it's not. Democracy, as the term has been used in political science for a long tim now, means participation of the people. The term does not provide for the actual political system in place, or the extent of participation. It's a democracy if the (actual) government is elected by the people - which includes everybody and no ethnical, racial, religious, sexual or other subset.

If I don't answer them individually, the get very cranky and start calling me names.

edh wrote:

There is a movement for Washington DC gaining statehood and the slogan 'taxation without representation' has been associated with it. Similarly the territory of Peurto Rico which has a population of over 3 million remains under-represented although the Obama adminstration does seem keen for progress on this.

The US Federal government significantly subsidizes the DC, so they could not survive as a state in the traditional sense. Plus it seems unfair to give them the same number of senators as CA (even though there are some existing states with very low population that have 2 senators). We don't want to repeat whatever mistakes were already made in the past. This whole subject is pursued by Democrats only because DC would always vote Democratic due to the number of minorities and poor people who live there. Otherwise, the Democrats would not ever bring this subject up. I would not object to making DC part of Maryland (which they geographically are) which would then give DC representative in the House (if Maryland was willing to pay their bills instead of the US Government).

The people of Puerto Rico have regularly voted against statehood, primarily because they get many financial benefits from the US (such as not having to support a military), but don't have to pay US income taxes as a territory. I am sure the Democrats want their votes, but they don't really care about whether statehood is to the benefit of the Puerto Rican people.

There is no difference between democracy and a republic. The Founders called their blend of citizen and human rights "republic", but that doesn't make it so. The Athenian Democracy only let about 20% of the people vote. By modern standards, it is NOT a democracy. The only modern country that has broad accomodations of direct democracy is probably Switzerland. It would be the only country currently befitting your narrow definition of democracy. Every other country would be a republic or a dictatorship.

Your vocabulary seems to have been influenced by a certain ideology. One where the Democrats are Socialist, so Democracy must be Socialism. But it's not. Democracy, as the term has been used in political science for a long tim now, means participation of the people. The term does not provide for the actual political system in place, or the extent of participation. It's a democracy if the (actual) government is elected by the people - which includes everybody and no ethnical, racial, religious, sexual or other subset.

The concept of a "Republic" has several different meanings. In the context of the US Constitution, one of the primary meanings is that the Federal government has limited powers, and the states (or the people) retain rights not specifically granted to the US Government in the Constitution. Not all democratic nations (very few in fact) are constructed that way, or at least not to the extent as in the US. I am not arguing whether this is good or bad, that it just the way it works. The US Constitution may have been written differently if created today, and obviously some are trying to "interpret" the Constitution to mean something other than what it says on these matters of Federal vs States vs Individual powers and liberties.

Regarding the other subjects your raised, such as whether any democratic socialist government ever transformed into a dictatorship, I am not even going to entertain the ridiculous proposition that it has never happened, and will not debate that subject with someone who has a total disregard for the facts on that subject. I owe you some explanation as to why I will not respond.

Plus it seems unfair to give them the same number of senators as CA (even though there are some existing states with very low population that have 2 senators).

As per the US contitution the right to statehood exists once the population has reached 60000 and other conditions are met. Are you saying that we have finally found a part of the US constitution that you disagree with?

For the record I'm actually for voter ID of some form on this. Not to discriminate against those people you call 'lazy' as if that is the case, it shows that the system fails. Instead it is a simple way of preventing corruption, whether it is widespread or not. It doesn't matter if it is not widespread, just so long as there is 1 fraudulent vote it could have massive repercussions if it has the possibility of swinging a government one way or the other.

I think this is the appropriate question to ask: In my words "How close does the polling system come to a perfect such system?" My definition of a perfect system is one in which anyone who was eligible (non-felon, citizen, old enough, resident for long enough) who wished to vote had their vote accurately tallied, and no one who was not eligible had a vote tallied. To that end it doesn't matter which way the error goes. One untallied eligible vote is equal to one tallied ineligible vote. So the question is what level of inconvenience vs security is optimal in terms of the total of untallied eligible votes (false negatives) plus the number of tallied ineligible votes (false positives.)

I think a name/address/SSN/signature combination is a good level. I would actually like very much a purple finger. I think the combination of that data with purple finger should prevent most over-voting while allowing most people who are eligible to vote to vote.

Now, that is about the level where most of the states are currently (some without SSN authentication, all without purple fingers.) So if we, as a society, make the checks stricter we will increase the number of false negatives, while decreasing the number of false positives. Since the proponents of the law have been unable to show (at least in PA) that there has been a single false positive that would have been avoided, but this will undoubtedly cause some false negatives, it seems like this law moves the polling system further from an ideal one. Hence it is bad. It doesn't matter if it is constitutional or not. The issues of good/bad and constitutional/unconstitutional are not the same.

If one wants to argue that the law is good, they must explain why its costs (additional false negatives) outweigh its benefits (fewer false positives) either there must be numerical more of removed false positives than the additional false negatives, or the false negatives must be less important. Since no one can provide any evidence of false positives, the ratio of 'badness' for a false positive versus a false negative must be huge. Hence my question about 1000 vs 1.

As per the US contitution the right to statehood exists once the population has reached 60000 and other conditions are met. Are you saying that we have finally found a part of the US constitution that you disagree with?

There are a lot of things I would change in the Constitution if I could. Just a few off the top of my head:

Limit filibusters (which means a minority of Senators can hold up voting indefinitely on any legislation) in the Senate to one week. Currently Senate rules (not the Constitution) allows for a filibuster unless 60% of the members vote to end debate.

Allow Line item veto by the president for appropriations bills - this would get rid of pork barrel amendments by powerful members of Congress.

Some kind of non-partisan primary system as was discussed earlier in this thread. There could still be political parities, but top two vote getters make the run-off election, regardless of party, if no one gets a majority in the primary. Might have to be done a little differently for Presidential selection due to Electoral College.

Regarding Statehood, here is what I can find in the Constitution:

Article IVSection. 3.New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Section. 4.The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

I don't see anything about 60,000 people, but maybe I missed it some place else.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum